Beginning January 4th, the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) requires that workers of large organizations be vaccinated or tested weekly for COVID-19. However, this legislation comes with a slew of opposition as companies in Southern states rallied together to file a lawsuit. Among these companies include retailers, truckers, and distributors which were represented by a trade association. Before this mandate went into effect, business groups worked hard to lobby against it, attempting to make it as lenient as possible.
They argue that it’s not feasible to obtain such goals in a short time span and employees will be lost in a crucial time period, with the supply chain thread already weakening. Even more, businesses claim it will be difficult to fire workers considering the existing labor shortage and the critical holiday season approaching. The Justice Department has fought back, noting the number of lives that could potentially be saved through this mandate.
However, opponents of the mandate have begun comparing it to the Holocaust, with some Kansas residents wearing a yellow star on their chest at meetings to reference the “oppression” they face by being forced to obtain a vaccine or get tested weekly. Such actions have been deemed inappropriate by various officials but still continued in Kansas this weekend. With such intense opposition, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals temporarily blocked the OSHA rule over the weekend and will revisit the issue on Monday.
Questions:Is it fair for businesses to have to suffer economically, even more than they already have over the course of the pandemic in order to place this law into effect?
Should workers that are fired due to incompliance with the mandate receive unemployment benefits?
Is this a threat to our freedoms as an individual? If so, businesses can be sued by their employees and will have to pay legal fees out of their pocket. How can we create legislation that doesn’t compromise the economic state of our businesses while prioritizing the health of our nation?
Should the law include easier methods of obtaining medical or religious exemptions from the vaccine?
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/11/04/biden-covid-vaccine-mandate-several-business-groups-criticize-rule.html
https://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/business-a-lobbying/580888-business-groups-sue-to-block-biden-vaccine-or-test
https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-joe-biden-business-idaho-legislature-15d8ec4ab0086cc4ca06b4037cf809a9
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/a-necessary-win-for-workers-and-devastating-for-companies-what-business-groups-are-saying-about-bidens-vaccine-mandate-11636049862
9 comments:
If the benefit of having a vaccine mandate in place will save lives, then it is in the best interest of businesses to protect their customers and require that their employees are vaccinated. Workers who are fired due to not following this mandate should not receive unemployment benefits because according to Legal Aid at Work, “Being fired from a job does not disqualify you from receiving unemployment insurance unless you are terminated for “misconduct;” showing serious or intentional disregard for your employer’s
interests.”
I don’t believe businesses can be sued by their employees over the enforcement of this mandate because the mandate is not something that businesses came together to make, rather the government is forcing businesses to comply. As for being a threat to our freedoms as an individual, I think the mandate for the COVID-19 vaccine is similar to early childhood vaccines that we are required to get (even though there was and still is an anti-vax sentiment), I don’t think there is much of a difference in the idea that these vaccines are required to protect ourselves and those around us. It’s disgusting that people are comparing this vaccine mandate to the holocaust, and I can only imagine that this is a sick move to get more sympathy and publicity in the media. I really hope there aren’t nutjobs that can actually believe they are being oppressed by the vaccine mandates.
Source: https://legalaidatwork.org/factsheet/12-facts-about-employment-law/
I agree with everything Anthony is saying here. Saving lives has to be the top priority, and it's frustrating that so many people don't understand this and even go so far as to compare getting vaccinated with the killing of millions of innocent people. It's extremely disrespectful and overall just disgusting behavior.
The mandate doesn't even require people to get the vaccine if they do weekly COVID tests (although obviously getting the vaccine is much safer), which are quick, easy, and painless. Just another example of how protestors exaggerate things to try to make their views seem valid.
Legislation that prioritizes the nation's health will inevitably compromise businesses as long as people are willing to quit instead of complying with the mandate. However, this legislation is only trying to protect workers and those around them, and overall, a healthy, alive workforce is essential to the economy.
I absolutely agree with both of the above comments. It's fascinating to see the effect of business groups in today's world, it really goes to show the emphasis on money in our government system. Money talks. With the republican opposition to the existence of COVID and the efficacy of the vaccine, it's definitely a step in the right direction that such expansive legislation regarding the mandate of the vaccine is being discussed but it truly must remain in order to prevent lives from being lost. Also, considering these business groups in Southern states are mostly representative of blue-collar jobs, it's even more critical that they get vaccinated or tested weekly at the very least because these jobs require in-person participation and can often be indoors. It'll be interesting to observe COVID rates are the holiday season begins and I'm curious as to the mask policies in such companies.
I agree that businesses should keep the long-term implications of not requiring all employees to be vaccinated in mind. In the short-term it may cause disruptions as some workers might quit. These disruptions, however, are not as harmful compared to the risk of another variant mutating and spreading even amongst vaccinated people. Businesses should consider that another outbreak would make labor shortage worse as parents might have to stay home to take care of their children. Without a vaccine mandate the economy will not be able to open fully, for example, restaurants won’t be able to operate at full capacity as they will have to abide by restrictions to ensure the virus doesn’t spread from unvaccinated people. I believe that the best compromise is to reduce partial unemployment benefits to incentivize workers to come back into the labor force by getting vaccinated. Workers will therefore still have the choice of not getting vaccinated, but they will not get full unemployment benefits.
In regards to the fourth question, medical exemptions should be available only when it is absolutely necessary, otherwise that would defeat the whole purpose of the mandate. Religious exemptions are more complicated because it comes down to an individual’s choice and beliefs. While some religions have shown hesitation towards the vaccines, specifically towards Johnson & Johnson vaccine due to its use of fetal cell lines during the testing stage, many like the Catholic Church and Islamic Society of North America(ISNA) encourage members to take the vaccine and leave the decision for them to make. In addition, the current law states that workers must receive accommodations from their employers unless it causes them “undue hardship”, which has a low threshold. Therefore, I believe that all employees who apply for religious exemptions should be told about the facts surrounding their concerns about vaccines(fetal cells), and only then should they be able to receive a religious exemption.
Sources:
https://www.npr.org/2021/09/27/1040983237/religious-exemptions-to-vaccine-mandates-present-a-dilemma-for-employers
https://www.dispatch.com/story/news/2021/09/11/covid-19-few-religions-have-doctrinal-reasons-avoid-vaccine/8271710002/
- Sakshi Thoutireddy
I agree with all the mandates, they must protect their workers from covid, a deadly disease who has killed millions. They were also getting the option to get tested weekly they are not forced to get the vaccines. These companies have every single right to do this to protect others workers and the public. If the workers are fired they shouldn't get any benefits they had the choice to get weekly testing or the vaccines and they refused it is their fault, they should be fired. There are no threats to our freedom, we need to protect each-other and you are getting the choice but you refuse to follow, you still have all the freedoms you've always had you are not being oppressed. Legislation to help prioritize the health of the workers and American people, the people refusing vaccines should get a choice get tested often for said disease or get vaccinated, and if they refuse both they shouldn't be able to sue, there are no grounds to sue these companies who just want to help protect people from preventative diseases.
I completely agree with Anthony and Ella's stance that the safety of others should be prioritized, therefore making more strict regulations for workers. I think workers that are fired due to their in compliance with the mandate should receive unemployment benefits for a specific amount of time. Everyone has their right to receive or not receive the vaccine, but if fired, I would not say this is a threat to the freedom of individuals because while the pandemic continues, businesses are taking action in providing a safe environment for their costumers and their workers. I believe that providing more opportunities to work from home can not only benefit businesses, but it will also prioritize health. By working from home, those who choose to not receive the vaccination will have the opportunity to continue their work while those who follow the mandates and choose to get vaccinated can also have the option of working in person.
The mandates are an important step in ensuring that there is safety for all workers in the workplace as well as outside of it. While the mandate may cause many businesses to lose employees, understanding the broader impacts of the mandate in preventing the unpredictability of the workplace and employment moving forwards can offer a brighter perspective on their implementation. I don't think that people who refuse to follow the mandate should receive full unemployment benefits, as the mandate isn't preventing unvaccinated individuals from working, it only requires that they would get tested weekly (not unreasonable in the slightest). Complaints regarding "attacks" on personal freedom should truly be disregarded: not being willing to (this is even a stretch to say) "compromise" when it comes to the health of people in places of work, and more broadly also around the country and world, is selfish, and refusing to follow measures meant to increase safety should not be rewarded. Safety regulations as well should not be called restrictions on individual freedom - pretty ridiculous.
Comment by Lauren Mok because her comment got deleted:
In agreement with the statements above, I agree that maintaining strict Covid-19 regulations is critical to ensuring that lives are saved and that we are taking steps to be as safe as possible. I think it is absurd that these groups are unwilling to comply with the government policy not only because these implementations are meant to not only protect others but also themselves. Additionally, it perplexes me that people feel their rights are violated, as these mandates do not even force vaccinations as one can opt for a weekly covid test. Tests like these are quick and simple swabs, which clearly have no risks to an individual. As for exceptions to the vaccine, I think that the law should not include easier methods of exemptions, but harder ones. In more recent news, we have seen the rise of the new Omicron variant leaving more questions as to its ability to spread and its long term effects on humans. That said, maximizing safety precautions through initiatives like vaccinating as many people as possible has become even more critical. In addition, considering the arguments of businesses who claim Covid regulations hurt businesses, this argument only thinks short term. Mandates including reduced maximum occupancy won’t be going away any time soon until the virus is well under control. Therefore, businesses need to realize that cooperation will, in the long term, benefit their businesses by allowing us to (eventually) return to pre-covid regulations, and more importantly, save lives. As for unemployment benefits, I do not think that those fired due to noncompliance to covid-regulations should receive full unemployment benefits. I agree with Sakshi that these unemployment benefits for those who refuse to comply should be reduced to the point where working is more beneficial financially. By incentivizing these people back into the work field, they’ll be able to have more financial support, businesses will be able to retain their workforce, and the pandemic will be able to be monitored more carefully (since noncompliant, fired employees would likely not take precautions if not in the workforce).
Post a Comment